Orange County NC Website
7 <br />1 Commissioner Jacobs asked Planner Davis to discuss the difference in <br />2 requirements between minor and major subdivisions. Planner Davis explained the differences. Chair <br />3 Gordon stated that she believed staff would make the decision about minor or major subdivisions. Chair <br />4 Gordon stated that a change had occurred in the 2 -year rule and Planning Director Benedict concurred. <br />5 There is not an accumulative rule. <br />6 Commissioner Jacobs expressed his belief that deleting many of these <br />7 time limits is a good action. He asked questions of Planning Director Benedict, which were addressed. <br />8 Planning Board Member Barry Katz made reference to the website run by <br />9 the Town of Cary, North Carolina, and stated that the Cary website includes a timeline for development. <br />10 Member Katz suggested Orange County might want to develop and furnish similar information. <br />11 Planning Board Member Robert Strayhorn expressed the importance of <br />12 informing the public as to the duration of time necessary to have action on an item taken by the Planning <br />13 Department. Member Strayhorn also wanted to stress the importance of minor subdivisions to rural <br />14 Orange County. <br />15 (6) Audience Comments: <br />16 Emily Cameron distributed a prepared statement that addressed her <br />17 support for staying within the timeframes. Ms. Cameron also had concerns about the actual text of the <br />18 amendments if the Board of County Commissioners approves them. Commissioner Brown asked Ms. <br />19 Cameron if there was ever a concept plan that was denied. Ms. Cameron stated that the majority of the <br />20 time, they could work it out with the developer. <br />21 Planning Board Member Lynn Holtkamp made a statement about limiting <br />22 the timeframes. Ms. Cameron stated the timeframe for a preliminary plan was 85 days. Upon review of <br />23 the concept plan, any concerns should immediately be addressed with the developer for quick resolution. <br />24 Ms. Cameron reiterated that she does not feel any additional time is necessary. <br />25 Vic Knight, of Miller Road, stated that he has many concerns about the <br />26 elimination of timeframes. While he agreed with extending the 3-day appeal timelines, he believes those <br />27 within Orange County who have rural developments represent a large portion of the population, and <br />28 would see these open -ended timeframes as problems. Mr. Knight does not want to have time limits <br />29 eliminated. <br />30 Paul Kempa, 4726 Green Riley Road, made reference to Planning Board <br />31 Member Robert Strayhom's comments about keeping the process for developing a minor subdivision <br />32 separate from the one for major subdivisions. Mr. Kempa believes it is important to leave the dates in <br />33 the ordinance. <br />34 Steve Yuhasz, 3710 St. Mary's Road, is a land surveyor and expressed his <br />35 belief that elimination of time limits is not a good idea and urged the Board of County Commissioners not <br />36 to do so. He stated that if all timeframes are eliminated, then accountability at the staff level is also <br />37 eliminated. Mr. Yuhasz stated that knowing that there is an end to the process encourages people to go <br />38 into the process. If the ordinance is changed, there is no appeal of anything to the Planning Board or the <br />39 Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Yuhasz believes that to eliminate any kind of appeal process from <br />40 the ordinance is a mistake. Mr. Yuhasz also stated that it would be wrong to force urban rules on a rural <br />41 area, and that the only process changes between minor and major subdivisions is procedural. Mr. <br />42 Yuhasz also stated that there had been no suggestion that staff meet with developers before making <br />43 changes to the process, instead of making the developers part of the changes that are proposed. Mr. <br />44 Yuhasz again stated the need for an appeal mechanism to be built into the system. <br />45 Mark O'Neal, of Pickett Sprouse Real Estate, stated that he supports the <br />46 timelines. Mr. O'Neal stated that in Durham County, North Carolina, there is a development review <br />47 board that meets once a week. <br />48 John Hartwell, of Lawrence Road, stated that he does not like the proposal <br />49 because it is not good government in that there are safeguards built into the ordinance. If there is a need <br />50 to change a time, then specifically address that change. Mr. Hartwell stated that there was a logic that <br />51 led to the initial adoption of the 2 -year concept plan. Mr. Hartwell stated he would like to see the abuses <br />52 remedied, but not by eliminating the timelines within the ordinance. <br />